There are a lot of people behind the scenes now trying to make sense of this. T

You have been misrepresenting what the 'Roger Cast Pour' footage...

....is "supposed" to be/is "confirmed" to be.

One more time....Bob Gimlin has not 'confirmed' the 'Cast Pour Footage' to be anything...because when Pat asked him about it...over the phone....Bob Gimlin was not able to see the footage....over the phone.

What Pat asked about...is not necessarily the same thing that Bob was thinking of, when he "confirmed" what the footage was......over the phone.

Roger said that he did a 'demonstration pour' for his documentary...a few days before they shot Patty. And Bob Gimlin told Pat that he filmed Roger filling one of Patty's footprints. That footage would have to have been on the '2nd Reel'.

So....there may have been 2 separate occasions where Roger was filmed filling a footprint, at Bluff Creek.

There has not been any 'confirmation'....regarding the 'Roger Cast Pour footage'....period.

To claim there has been "confirmation" is to misrepresent the facts of the matter.

kitakaze wrote:

The problem is that for being one day, it doesn't. (make sense)

It's an editing goof.....

Not necessarily.

Here is the original image of the 'Right footprint cast', from the 2nd Reel footage.....added to the comparison graphic I made...

A couple of Patty's casts...showing flexible, wiggling toes....(the casts supposedly made by "plaster stompers", according to Heironimus... )...

Edited by SweatyYeti, 23 January 2012 - 05:53 AM.

0

kitakaze wrote:

"One could argue Heironimus has simply convinced himself of his own lies, but knowing Heironimus personally, he simply does not have any manner of guile."

The two side-by-side casts cannot be pictures of the same cast, unless the image of one of them has been mirrored. This is infant school stuff.....if you can lay the outline of one image directly over the other then it is completely impossible that they are the same object, unless one image has been reversed.

I am not making any point whatsoever about the authenticity of any of the footage, I am just saying that the pair of side-by-side images are incorrect/ incompatible in one completely obvious and fundamental detail. I'm finding it impossible to think of a way to make this oh-so-simple concept any clearer: the underview of something is a mirror image of the upper view of the same thing. These images aren't a mirror image in outline, so either they aren't of the same thing, or one of the images has been flipped.

See if you can acknowledge the problem. Then see if you can find an answer without reposting one of your earlier images. This is as painful a process as tooth extraction.......Bob Zenor gets it. So would anyone who gave it 5 seconds thought.

The two side-by-side casts cannot be pictures of the same cast, unless the image of one of them has been mirrored. This is infant school stuff.....if you can lay the outline of one image directly over the other then it is completely impossible that they are the same object, unless one image has been reversed.

A few key points show they're the same. Here's a visual(disregard my stellar paint skills)-

We can only really compare the one side of the foot because the other side is obstructed by dirt since it was filmed at an angle. You don't need to flip anything, the key features match.

Did you see this one I did earlier? I actually did this pretty accurately...........and it tells a very different story.Mike

You're trying to compare an angled photo with a straight on one- they're not going to match up. Especially considering one whole side is obstructed by dirt.

The only part we can compare is the side that's not obstructed, and even that won't line up perfectly, but still enough to compare the key features. The below yellow line has been copied, mirrored, and the angle readjusted-

Reason # 4000000 Not to Consider the PGf a Hoax (please add more if you'd like to) : ):

The 'Think Like a Hoaxer' Approach (Thanks, kitakaze- we don't see the same things in the PGf but, you do have some good ideas.) :

The PGf Creature was either real or, Roger was a cinematic-bigfoot-hoaxing-genius. If Roger was a cinematic-bigfoot-hoaxing-genius then why do so many subtle hints in the film indicate that he was not that at all? One indication is the fact that the images where Roger holds the camera the steadiest are also the closest images of the Creature (thanks, Bill M.). That is contrary to optimizing the chance for a successful hoax. Other indications include the film running out and the lack of any additional theatrics- just a Creature walking by.

Was Roger a cinematic genius, an un-paralleled hoaxer and a man with an obsession for finding Bigfoot? I think he was the latter of the three only and that, at that, he succeeded.

Edited by xspider1, 25 January 2012 - 09:54 PM.

0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

Well, they say: 'Tis better to de-bunk than to have never been de-bunken... Hey! I may have been debunked myself a few times. There's just usually something strange making something else strange seem, not so strange any more. /> random comments.

I click the image below ~> then I click the '+' once or twice and I never get tired of watching the Creature walk across the screen. That doesn't happen with any fake Bigfoot that I know of.

The above image is Copyright M.K.Davis - at thedavisreport.wordpress.com

0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

I don't think he proved the suit was fake but it looks like the footprint stuff he posted is accurate. I don't see any problems with. It. I'm not sure if that can apply towards the suit or film subject.

STOP THE PRESSES! I just realized that the plaster pour scene is in obviously damp soil. The film clip of the tracks is in dry soil. This leads me to believe that yes these are from two different times if not two different places.

So now Davis thinks he own's a copyright? I don't think making a GIF allows anybody any rights.

Good Point, RF. Correction: I should have quoted directly from the site:

—Copyright Patricia Patterson. Film work and stabilization by M.K.Davis. Please do not right click without permission.

0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

STOP THE PRESSES! I just realized that the plaster pour scene is in obviously damp soil. The film clip of the tracks is in dry soil. This leads me to believe that yes these are from two different times if not two different places.

That's why Ben River came up with the "rake and watering can" claim to make his theory work- the two scenes have different terrain features and soil color.

Regardin' the images of Roger pourin' the plaster an makin' the cast. I called Bob (Gimlin) last night an asked him bout it, the images are indeed of Roger at the P/G film site, an he is indeed castin' one of the footprints left by the sasquatch they witnessed an that Roger filmed. The cast(s) were made not long after sightin'/filmin'. An yes, it is Bob who filmed Roger for these frames. Bob couldn't recall exactly how it happened, he figured Roger simply asked him to film him while he was makin' the cast, so he/Bob did.

So, with Bob's help, those frames of Roger pourin' the plaster are now confirmed to be at the Bluff Creek film site, an of a cast bein' made of a footprint left by the sasquatch. Bob filmed Roger makin' the cast not long after the sightin' an filmin' of the sasquatch they witnessed Oct. 20th, 1967.

LAL-Since we already determined that the trackway cast is not the same as the pouring footage cast-

Also that the trackway cast IS the same as the left foot cast Roger is holding-

Well that would leave us with the pouring footage cast. Do you think the pouring footage cast is the same as the right foot Roger is holding?

They don't look the same to me- I see no matching points at all. I think Gimlin was mistaken with what he was filming. Unless Roger made more than two casts of Patty then these would have to be different events.